Breitbart Wins! The Most Epically Idiotic Article On The Internet – This Week

The World Wide Web is a cornucopia of Olympian ignoramusi. The field ranges from hollowed out heads in suits like Jonah Goldberg, to asylum escapees like Ted Nugent, to pitiful has-been bimbos like Victoria Jackson, to messianic delusionaries like Glenn Beck. With such an abundance of talentless charlatans like these posting staggeringly asinine missives online, the competition for Most Epically Idiotic Article On The Internet is stiffer than Mitt Romney at a gay bar four hours after overdosing on a bad batch of Viagra.

Leave it to Breitbart’s John Nolte to sink to the occasion and compose a work of astonishing stupidity. The title of Nolte’s opus, “Why the Media Hates and Fears Super PACs,” pretty much gives away the fundamental foolishness of his premise. The media is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Super PACS (more on that later). But foolishness is the hallmark of Nolte’s career. Take for example this article wherein Nolte advocated murdering the mother of a young actress:

Breitbart's Penis Envy

Breitbrat Nolte begins his incoherent rant with a typical bashing of the press as liberal, despite all the evidence to the contrary. With no substantiation whatsoever, he called the media “a gaggle of left-wing operatives disguised as journalists.” Nolte goes on to assert that the media fears the Citizens United decision handed down by the Supreme Court because the media is in the business of the “furthering of leftist causes.” Notice how he refers to the media as a single-minded entity shuddering frightfully at the thought of Citizens United. He makes no effort to document that assertion. But finally, Nolte gets around to what he regards as the core of the problem:

“[T]he media is objecting to free and unlimited political speech – the very thing protected by the very first Amendment. The media’s outrage that there are now no longer restrictions on how much money a company or individual can spend to further a political cause, is the same as expressing outrage that that most sacred of American rights – unlimited political speech – is no longer limited by a tyrannical government.”

Of course. The media is “outraged” that individuals and corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money on ….. MEDIA! Where does Nolte think that the hundreds of millions of dollars that he concedes will be raised and spent is going to go? By far, the biggest share of that bounty will be spent on advertising in the media. The very same media that Nolte refers to as an amorphous singularity that is united in opposition to Super PACs. So obviously the media is beside themselves with rage. Their secret plot to advance socialism is way more important to them than the windfall in unprecedented profits. Anyone can see that.

Well, anyone that suffers from the same moronic myopia of Breitbrat Nolte, whose grasp of the particulars of the Citizens United decision is utterly confused. Nolte does not seem to understand that the decision opened the funding floodgates to allow unprecedented levels of unaccountable contributions that are tantamount to giving wealthy individuals and corporations permission to buy election outcomes. He describes it as a “First Amendment victory,” but it is a victory for dollars, not for voters. It changes the dimensions of democracy from “one man, one vote,” to “one dollar, one vote,” because now free speech comes with a price tag that only the wealthy can afford. How can the average citizen’s voice be heard when it is competing with Exxon or Karl Rove’s American Crossroads?

Nolte’s whining that the media has been enforcing a liberal tyranny over the nation and is enraged by new competition from the Super PACs created by Citizens United ignores the fact that the media themselves are participants in the rush to exploit the Super PAC phenomenon. Every major media corporation (Time Warner, General Electric, Comcast, Viacom, Disney, News Corp) already has their own. And they are spending heavily to advance their interests over those of the people. But Nolte has trouble with the concept of facts to begin with, as is apparent in this example from his article:

“Fact : In 2008, you heard almost no media outcry against all of that ‘outside money affecting elections.’ Today, that’s all you hear, especially after a Republican victory like the one last week in Wisconsin.

First of all, Nolte needs a remedial course in identifying facts. He cannot assert as fact that “you” heard nothing in 2008 about outside money. How could he know what you heard? Secondly, his main point as to the “media outcry” on campaign finance completely ignores that actual fact that fundraising by independent groups has long been a huge topic of discussion. It resulted in the passage of the McCain–Feingold Act in 2002 that put restrictions on certain types of contributions and spending. That act was still in effect in 2008, but was largely overturned in 2010 by Citizens United. If Nolte didn’t hear people talking about outside money in 2008, it’s because his ears were stuffed with right-wing bias and the smears and tangential trivialities that he helped to promulgate (i.e. Rev. Wright, Anthony Weiner).

Nolte makes an extraordinary leap in logic to assert that media companies are de facto Super PACs and that they have always been “allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to push a political agenda.” But Nolte is not talking about any actual PAC activity. He is asserting the premise that any money spent collecting or reporting news is identical to spending for political advocacy. That’s because Nolte believes that all news is the work of the left-wing gaggle mentioned above. He writes that everyone from the Today Show to Saturday Night Live are “shill[s] for leftist causes.” Therefore, he sees the advent of Citizens United as a leveling mechanism.

“Thanks to ‘Citizens United,’ though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation’s politics.

“And this is why the media so loathes ‘Citizens United’ and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.”

And therein lies the heart of Nolte’s Epic Idiocy. He actually sees Super PACs as “beautiful,” a blossoming bouquet of wholesome, corporate goodness. In fact, he veritably tingles at the thought of corporations being able to affect the outcomes of elections. Who wouldn’t want corporations – soulless entities whose only purpose is to increase shareholder wealth – to decide everything from how are children are taught, to the state of our environment, to Wall Street regulatory policy, to when, and with whom, we go to war? Nolte’s lust for allowing unaccountable corporations to assume control over the most profoundly personal aspects of our lives is downright perverse. It is also a nearly textbook definition of fascism.


And it’s a perversion rooted in ignorance because the backbone of his thesis is utterly false. It should come as no surprise that a web site called “News Corpse” is not suffering from a naive affinity for the press. But the stated mission of this site recognizes that the problem with the media is that it has evolved into an incestuous family of a few giant corporations whose interests lean more toward their own welfare than the welfare of the public they serve or the nation that protects their independence. The problem with the media is that it IS composed of giant, multinational corporations that exploit their market power and their influence over government.

It is difficult to comprehend how Nolte can harbor such a schizophrenic viewpoint wherein he worships corporations, but despises the media which are, in fact, corporations. He makes no sense in castigating the whole of the media for bitterly opposing Super PACs (for which he provides no evidence), even while they have formed their own and are projected to earn billions of dollars from the advertising headed their way. His opinion can only be described as twisted by a paranoid neurosis that prevents him from observing reality as it is.

It is that blindness that has created a monumental obstacle to rationality and earns Breitbart’s John Nolte the award for the Most Epically Idiotic Article On The Internet. And due to his puerile dimwittedness and cognitive ineptitude, this will surely not be the last time he will be so (dis)honored.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

THE VETTING: Mitt Romney’s Brush With A Tragic Back Alley Abortion

One of the best known components of Mitt Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch candidacy is his epic flip-flop on the issue of abortion. In his 1994 campaign for the senate in Massachusetts, Romney was an ardent pro-choice advocate. It was a position he vigorously defended in a debate with his opponent Ted Kennedy. His remarks could have come straight from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet:

“I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

So much for wavering. Romney is now a staunchly pro-life conservative, but the catalyst for his original opinion is worthy of exploration. Romney has never publicly identified the “close family relative” to whom he referred in the debate, but Salon published an article last year that recounted her sad experience as an unwed, pregnant woman in the years prior to Roe v. Wade. She was the younger sister of Romney’s brother-in-law, and was engaged to be married. However, her pregnancy was likely a source of shame and the whole matter was hushed up presumably to preserve the reputation of the family, including Romney’s father who was governor of Michigan at the time.

After the debate, Romney affirmed the position he had taken by saying that it “obviously makes one see that regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, that you would hope it would be safe and legal.” Apparently that observation is not so obvious anymore.

The matter might not have made much of a stir but for the fact that it was raised again today by the National Enquirer, whose typically sensationalized headline screamed “Mitt Romney Backstreet Abortion Shocker.”

Mitt Romney Abortion Shocker

Regardless of the hyperbole of the source, the facts were all present in Salon’s earlier article. Now that the story is out there, it is fair to inquire as to how Romney feels today about the ordeal of his deceased relative. While the loss of a loved one should never become fodder for political gamesmanship, how such experiences shape the values of a candidate are highly relevant. If her loss had such a profound impact on him, even thirty years later when he was running for the senate, does he no longer feel that she, or any other women in her position, ought to have access to safe and legal medical attention?

Since Romney’s current position is to turn back the clock to a time when women had no alternative but the back alley procedures that were often fatal, can he say today that he is satisfied with the fate that his young relative suffered; that it was merely the consequence of her choice; that a young woman today, perhaps another relative, should be subject to the same fate were she to make the same choice?

Romney was once driven by his grief to make an unwavering commitment to never force his beliefs on others. Is he through with grieving? Is he comfortable with the grief that other families will suffer if his promise to repeal Roe v. Wade is fulfilled? Someone should ask Romney these questions.


What The Media Left Out Of The Senate Hearings With Eric Holder

Yesterday the Senate held a hearing on the excruciatingly overwrought pseudo-controversy known as “Fast and Furious.” The featured witness at the hearing was Attorney General Eric Holder, who has already appeared at nine previous hearings on the same subject. Despite never having produced the slightest bit of evidence of any malfeasance by Holder, Sen. John Cornyn delivered notably vacant harangue that climaxed with this demand:

“In short, you’ve violated the public trust in my view and, by failing and refusing to perform the duties of your office, it’s more with sorrow than regret, than with anger, that I would say that you leave me no alternative but to join those who call upon you to resign your office.”

That tasty soundbite was broadcast incessantly in the media for the remainder of the day, and into the following day. Never mind that there was no substance behind it and no context to explain it. But there was something even more egregious that the media omitted: The response from Eric Holder. For some reason, that information was not deemed relevant to the story. So, in an effort to level the playing field, here is some of what Holder had to say in response to Cornyn’s request:

“With all due respect, senator, there is so much that is factually wrong with the premises that you started your statement with, it’s almost breathtaking in its inaccuracy.”

“If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the attorney general that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An attorney general whom I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called ‘Wide Receiver’ and did nothing to stop them. Nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, ‘walked’ in that instance.

“I’m also the attorney general who called on an inspector general to look into this matter, to investigate this matter. I’m also the attorney general who made personnel changes at ATF and in the U.S. Attorneys office that was involved, have overseen the changes of processes and procedures within ATF to make sure that this doesn’t happen ever again.

“So I don’t have any intention of resigning.”

“I am willing to sit down and talk about the provision of more materials. I have sent letters in that regard, the deputy attorney general has sent letters in that regard, and have not had responses. Which leads me to believe that the desire here is not for an accommodation but for a political point-making.”

There’s quite a bit there for excerpting in the nightly news, but most of the media declined to do so. And yet, the rightist punditry still whines about what they think is the “liberal” media. It would have nice if the news that Holder had wiped the floor with Cornyn had reached more than a few liberal bloggers. The right has no problem blasting its radically slanted message across the airwaves. The left has significant room for improvement in this regard.


Glenn Beck Reviews Black-Themed Obama Campaign Ad

If you were looking for an authoritative analysis of an Obama campaign advertisement targeting an African-American constituency, who better to consult than homeboy and O.G. (Original German), Glenn Beck?

That’s who Bill O’Reilly turned to last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and he got his money’s worth. The segment included pleadings from Beck for O’Reilly to use the “M” word (Marxist) about Obama. O’Reilly giggled flirtatiously but succumbed only so far as to declare Obama the most liberal president in America’s history (which is news to liberals).

After listening to the new ad, the pair expressed their shock upon seeing an overt appeal to a targeted demographic group, something they seem to think never happens in advertising.

Beck: I’ve never heard anything like that, Bill.
O’Reilly: In a campaign ad, I haven’t either. I would love to see Mitt Romney’s backup singers though. They probably look like the Osmonds.
Beck: Here’s the problem with that ad. I mean it’s two-fold. In that ad they talk about, you know, we’ve got your back, Mr. President. Isn’t the President supposed to have our back? Isn’t he supposed to be that guy that insures that he’s watching our liberty and our life so nobody comes and kills our family or kills us, and nobody comes and scoops us up off the street in the middle of the night?

First of all, I find it interesting that O’Reilly would surmise that Romney’s backup singers would look like the Osmonds, a quintessentially white family of Mormons. I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s Beck’s commentary that really demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and hypocrisy.

Beck seems to have missed entirely that the ad is a litany of all the ways in which Obama “has our back,” by enumerating the policies he is pursuing. The only thing that Beck hears is the Motown-like chorus. Even worse, Beck seems to be confusing the role of the president with the role of a bodyguard. His assertion that the President is supposed to protect us from some unidentified assailants is downright looney, however, it fits nicely into Beck’s patented formula of fear mongering. To Beck there is no dark corner of the room that isn’t filled with stalking demons.

Glenn Beck

Seeing as how Beck is also one of the biggest proponents of right-wing criticisms of the so-called “nanny state,” it is curious that he has now assigned the President the responsibility for policing our neighborhoods and protecting us from whoever it is that Beck imagines is threatening to “scoop us up off the street in the middle of the night.” That duty might distract the President from trivial matters like the economy, jobs, and foreign affairs. It might also piss off Spiderman who will surely regard it as an intrusion into his jurisdiction.

Watching O’Reilly and Beck analyze an Obama ad aimed at African Americans is not unlike watching Rick Santorum and Pat Robertson reviewing the DVD release of “Brokeback Mountain.” There is very little of value that one could extract from their analysis. But what’s truly frightening is that Fox’s viewers will sop up their bile and regard it as credible. At least until they are scooped up off the street in the middle of the night.


Bill O’Reilly’s Dementia Shapes His Definition Of Fox News

Bill O'ReillyOn the O’Reilly Factor last night Bill O’Reilly engaged in a discussion of media bias with right-wing “Slobbering” author, Bernie Goldberg. During the conversation O’Reilly launched into a description of the network that has employed him for the past sixteen years. His assessment is typical of the tunnel-blindness that infects Fox News:

“Fox News, I mean, you have a network that basically is different from the establishment network that Mr. [Chris] Matthews was talking about. Takes a much more traditional approach. It has conservative hosts on that have programs. That’s unheard of in the other precincts. Never happens, never has happened, all right — I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, that description.”

First of all, O’Reilly is correct in saying that Fox News is different. There has never before been a national news network that was so closely aligned with the interests of a political party. Fox News is so ingrained into the GOP that they broadcast Republican talking points straight from RNC memos – typos and all.

As for O’Reilly’s assertion that it is “unheard of” that other networks ever employed conservative hosts, is he serious, or seriously delusional? I, for one, would like to disagree with his ludicrous claim that conservatives hosting programs on other networks “never has happened.” And I have actual evidence to back it up.

Currently on MSNBC (you know, the socialist news network) there is a three hour long morning program hosted by Joe Scarborough, a conservative Republican, former congressman from Florida. Can you imagine Fox giving over their three hour morning block to Alan Grayson? MSNBC was also the home of conservative hosts like Michael Savage, Oliver North, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham. Three of those are now Fox News employees. At CNN (you know, the communist news Network), they have had numerous conservatives hosting programs as well. Remember Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck? Those last two later jumped ship for shows on Fox.

So obviously O’Reilly is either lying or in dire need of medical attention. How else could he possibly have missed this parade of conservatives on other news networks? Conversely, it is Fox News that has a one-sided ideological bias. They have never had a solo liberal host in their entire history. O’Reilly’s characterization of the media is not only wrong, it’s 180 degrees from reality. Which explains his success on the network that specializes in news reporting that is 180 degrees from reality and the polar opposite of the truth.


Fox Nation’s Lopsided Reporting On Florida Voter Purge

Threats of litigation were flying today between federal agencies and the state of Florida over Florida’s efforts to disenfranchise voters who disagree with the state’s Republican leadership. Governor Rick Scott’s plans to throw people off the voter rolls has been revealed to be a blatant attempt to illegally prevent minorities, senior citizens, and the poor from voting, constituencies that just happen to vote Democratic.

The Justice Department advised the Governor and the Secretary of State (in a detailed letter) that the methods they proposed to use to remove allegedly ineligible names from the voter registration records were both flawed and unlawful. The response from Scott was to announce that he would be suing the feds and that he intended to continue his voter purge.

Fox Nation, however, did not carry a report of this announcement for many hours after it had been made. It was not until a subsequent announcement from the Justice Department that they were planning legal action against the state that the Fox Nationalists finally posted an article on the matter. And, of course, the lede was that the federal government was suing Florida.

Fox Nation on Florida Lawsuit

The intention by Fox was to portray the government as the aggressors in this litigation. That fits in nicely with their narrative of the Obama government being a dictatorial regime that is abusing its power over the sovereign states. And that’s why they didn’t bother to report that it was the state that initiated the legal action.

That’s not all that Fox failed to report. The substance of the dispute between Florida and the DOJ concerns the state’s unlawful purging of legitimate voters. The Tampa Bay Times conducted a review of the state’s proposed list of ineligible voters and found a total of forty non-citizens. Out of those, they identified at most six who “might” have voted. Conversely, they found more than 500 people who were determined to be actual citizens entitled to register and vote. Yet Scott continues to assert a justification for stripping the right to vote from 500 (mostly Democratic) citizens in order to block a half dozen ineligible voters.

The Justice Department is not the only party suing Florida. The ACLU has also filed a suit over the same issues. If you want to help you can sign this petition from MoveOn.org calling on AG Eric Holder to “to block Gov. Scott from illegitimately kicking Floridians off the voter roll.”

On a side note, I wasted a little time perusing the comments attached to the Fox Nation article. In the process I observed some pretty revolting language and overt racism. Here is a representative example of the sort of people who populate the Fox community:

Fox Nation Racism

Judging from the context of the reply, my guess is that the first comment was just a well-reasoned defense of Holder and Obama. The FoxPods, not capable of tolerating that, pounced on it by clicking the “Flag” button to get the comment removed, but not before one disgusting reply was posted. Later, the entire comments section was closed and removed. There were about 300 comments when I was there, but now they are all gone. That tells you something about both the Fox community and the managers of the site.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Mitt Romney Wants To Eliminate Government Bloat – Like Teachers

A couple of days ago I posted an article detailing how Mitt Romney is Protecting America From The Scourge Of Firefighters, Police, And Teachers. I wrote in part that…

“Mitt Romney has boldly come out against big government and its coddling of superfluous bureaucrats that drain our nation of scarce resources. And Romney courageously puts names to these bloodsucking parasites who provide no discernible benefit to society.”

Today, rather than sensibly walking back the absurd position that America needs fewer teachers, firefighters, and police, Romney’s campaign doubled down. One of his top surrogates, John Sununu, even refused to characterize Romney’s remarks as a mistake:

“People ought to stop jumping on it as a gaffe and understand that there is real wisdom in the comment.”

Since the Romney camp is so proud of their latest pronouncement, I thought I’d pitch in by creating a campaign poster to help them promote their new initiative.

Mitt Romney on Government Bloat

I presume we’ll soon be seeing this everywhere as the Romney campaign seeks to spread the word about his commitment to reducing the deficit while increasing crime, illiteracy, and the death toll from fires and medical emergencies.


The Real Post-Wisconsin Right-Wing Agenda: Kill The Unions

During the long and bitter recall campaign against Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, the Republicans insisted that their sole purpose was to cut wasteful spending and bring down government deficits. Most of the working families of Wisconsin knew that wasn’t true. Walker’s agenda was aimed squarely at collective bargaining rights that had been won over decades of hard fought negotiations. The result was a better quality of life for workers in the state, both in and out of unions.

In the past week, however, the veil has been lifted, and the anti-worker conservative’s motives are now being expressed openly and without the deceptive pretenses that characterized the pro-Walker campaign.

Kill The Unions

Immediately following the election results, the National Review’s Rich Lowry published an article with the provocative title, “All That’s ‘Left’ Is to Sound the Death Knell for Unions.” Lowry gleefully wrote of the defeat of the recall, disparagingly portraying the 1.16 million pro-recall voters as “hippie leftovers and lefty college students.” But the unadulterated focus of the article was on his notion that public sector unions were on the decline and should be abolished.

Today on Fox News Sunday, that sentiment was affirmed by Indiana mayor (and prospective Romney running mate) Mitch Daniels, who said that “I think, really, government works better without them.” That’s a little like having the CEO of General Motors express his preference for not having to deal with auto worker’s unions. Of course not. They would both prefer to be able to exploit workers and deny them reasonable benefits and working conditions without the interference of worker’s advocates.

The fact that the right is now openly declaring their intention to abolish unions indicates the confidence with which they believe they can pursue that goal. They have always wanted to go back to the days when corporations could set the rules and employees had to take it or leave it. But after the success of the movement for worker’s rights and union representation they pretended to moderate their stance and accommodate the unions. Now that facade has apparently been demolished and management factions of business and government are re-mobilizing to roll back the gains won through prior negotiations.

Lowry and Daniels, and the right-wing media that support them, had better be careful. The results of the recall in Wisconsin were not an affirmation of some general opposition to unions. And with 1.16 million voters supporting the recall (vs. 1.33 million for Walker), there is still abundant support for the rights of workers. And there is no evidence that anti-recall voters were anti-union.

Not discussed much since the election is the fact that the recall of another Republican state senator was successful, which flips the majority control of the senate to the Democrats. So clearly the hooting on behalf of giddy Republicans is premature. They are not as popular as they think they are. And now, Walker’s regressive policies will not be rubber-stamped by a GOP legislature.

But Democrats must not be complacent. The right has overtly declared war on unions. It is no longer a secret agenda hidden behind a disingenuously expressed sympathy for workers. It is out in the open and it must be countered effectively and vigorously. They have thrown down the gauntlet and it is up to the left to step up and challenge them. This is a battle we can win because, while they may have millions of dollars from vested special interests, we have the people on our side.


Mitt Romney: Protecting America From The Scourge Of Firefighters, Police, And Teachers

Now here’s a campaign platform that takes real guts. Mitt Romney has boldly come out against big government and its coddling of superfluous bureaucrats that drain our nation of scarce resources. And Romney courageously puts names to these bloodsucking parasites who provide no discernible benefit to society. Here is what he had to say about them:

“[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

That’s right. The American people need help, and not the kind that President Obama is proposing. They don’t need fires extinguished by lazy civil servants. Real Americans will pick up their garden hoses and attack the blaze from their rooftops. Forest and prairie fires are actually a cheap method of clearing unsightly trees and brush. And paramedics only serve to exacerbate the socialist notion that victims of heart attacks and car accidents are “entitled” to life-saving emergency care.

The American people don’t need more police either. Protection from robberies and assaults is only sought by pussies and the French. And besides, if you really want police protection you can just start earning more money and move to a wealthy community where more officers are deployed and private security can be acquired for hefty fee. This is America, dammit. If you can’t get rich and pay for your own security, that’s your fault. And if you don’t stockpile weapons in your home, then you don’t really love your family. Just ask Mitt Romney (shooter of varmints) if he relies on the government for protection (well, except for all those secret service agents that cost taxpayers millions of dollars).

And don’t even get me started on teachers. What a waste of money that could have been spent on invading Iran. It’s not like America is the stupidest country in the world. At 37th worldwide there’s like 100 other countries that are stupider (and 36 that are smarterer).
Mitt Romney - We're Not StupidAgain the solution is simple. Send your children to expensive private schools like Romney’s Cranbrook, where they can get a superior education while traumatizing other students because they look different than you. The kids that are stuck in overcrowded public schools should stop whining and be grateful for community colleges and the jobs awaiting them at McDonalds. Romney has finally shown the courage to put an end to the fallacy that our children are the future when, in reality, they are just a bunch of germ-ridden fiscal burdens. Although the end result of this might make it harder for Romney to live up to his campaign slogan: We’re Not Stupid!

Mitt Romney, and most of the press, are preoccupied with an out-of-context soundbite where Obama said that “the private sector is doing fine.” When the whole of Obama’s remarks are considered it is clear that he was making a relative reference that the private sector (that has gained 4.2 million jobs in the last couple of years) is doing better than the public sector (which is still down 700,000 jobs). And if the jobs of firefighters, police and teachers were restored it would not only help those Americans, but it would produce more economic activity as a result of their employment (reducing the unemployment rate a full point) and improve the quality of life for all the Americans who benefit from the work they do.

In his remarks, Romney said that Obama was “out-of-touch.” It really takes cajones for a multimillionaire son of governor to call somebody else out-of-touch. But leave it to Romney and the Republican Party to twist reality out of all proportion and to take a position advocating fewer first-responders and educators. And these are the same people hyping so-called American exceptionalism.


Greetings From Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts Misery

Mitt Romney has been running a campaign focused almost entirely on negative attacks against President Obama. He relentlessly misrepresents Obama’s record and public statements in a frantic effort to diminish the President, while avoiding any discussion of his own questionable qualifications for office. And there is good reason for Romney to want to run from his record. His resume contains only two items to persuade the American people to vote for him:

The first item is his tenure as the CEO of Bain Capital, an investment firm that specialized in leveraging struggling companies by downsizing their workforce (he likes firing people), drowning them in debt, and then draining those assets to enrich Bain shareholders prior to shutting the companies down. Not exactly the skill set for a nation that hopes to stick around for a while.

The second item is his reign as governor of Massachusetts. Remember that? He almost never speaks of it. And the reason why is conveniently illustrated in this handy, shareable infographic:

Massachusetts Misery

So a governor who presided over nearly the worst job creation in the nation (here’s an InfoGraphic of The Real Job Creators), raised taxes on the middle class, and left a billion dollar deficit for his successor, now tells the country that his business experience is the backbone of his candidacy. But that experience didn’t do much good for the people of Massachusetts.

The truth is, based on Romney’s experience, the failure of his administration in Massachusetts was entirely predictable. He has pretty good credentials as a corporate raider and an investment manager if you are looking to hire someone who is skilled at extracting profits from companies headed toward bankruptcy. But if you are looking for a leader with expertise in growing the economy with a long-term perspective on creating wealth for a broad range of citizens (not just the 1%), then Romney’s background is not only irrelevant, it is a contra-indicator for success.

Voting for Mitt Romney for president would be like hiring an arsonist to put out a fire.